Leftists Move to Crush Conservative Columnist

Founded as the Manchester Guardian in 1821, the Guardian – along with the BBC – has long been the flagship of the British left, its very name synonymous with socialist politics. It has also, like many newspapers on both sides of the pond, been losing money for years because of competition from the Internet. How to solve this problem? The publishers of another major British paper, the Daily Mail, have addressed it by creating a website that’s lively, colorful, and packed with news stories (many of them sensational human-interest-type stuff) not just from Britain, but from around the world, especially the U.S. As a result the Mail‘s site has acquired a substantial international audience – the readers who post comments are as likely to be in Birmingham, Alabama, as in Birmingham, England – and has become the most heavily trafficked newspaper site in the U.K.

In 2007, the Guardian tried to increase its visibility in the U.S. by means of a special Guardian America subsite, but the project was deemed unsuccessful and was abandoned in 2009. Last year, however, the paper tried again. Unveiling Guardian US, Janine Gibson, editor of the new section, announced that “we’re hiring a new US team of writers, technologists and editors to work with journalists from the UK, to combine the Guardian’s internationalist, digital journalism with American voices and expertise.” Since then, the Guardian has hired a raft of American news commentators. From Naomi Wolf to Glenn Greenwald, they’ve all been leftists. This, of course, is bad business – a newspaper whose readership is sliding rapidly downhill can’t afford to alienate half of its potential audience. Even the New York Times has long made it a policy to have a couple of regular columnists on board whose politics are contrary to those of the editors (though not that contrary – and, in any event, op-ed pages, BookReview and other sections of the Times tend to be more reliably in line with the editors’ worldview).

Such considerations, it must be presumed, explain why the publishers of the Guardian decided to engage the services of Josh Treviño. Treviño is a founder of the Red State blog, which describes itself as “the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill,” “the most often cited right of center blog in the media,” and “one of the most influential voices of the grassroots on the right.” He is also well known as a staunch defender of Israel. The Guardian press release, issued on August 15, read as follows:

Today the Guardian announced the addition of Josh Treviño to their editorial team. Formerly of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Treviño will be the newest Correspondent for the Guardian’s growing US politics team through his column “On Politics & Persuasion” which launches on Monday, August 20.

The response to this announcement was instantaneous – and outraged. Out of nowhere, an anti-Treviño movement emerged, spearheaded by Al Jazeera journalist Ali Abunimah, who on August 15, having apparently combed through Treviño’s oeuvre in search of something that could profitably be highlighted for maximum damage, drew attention, in a posting at his charmingly named Electronic Intifada website, to a 2011 tweet by Treviño that read as follows: “Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla – well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.”

Abunimah, of course, read this flippant tweet as a cold-blooded call for murder.

Dozens of Abunimah’s readers at Electronic Intifada posted livid comments. A sampling: “As an American, the reason why I read the Guardian is because I know I will be reading a guaranteed, left wing newspaper….I’m not reading it anymore.” “It’s sickening to see people like this gracing the pages of a well-known publication. N[o] sane and civilised person should condone this.” “This is a sad day for the Guardian’s readership.” “Joshua Treviño is a fascist right winger, and the Guardian is mainstreaming his ideology.” “[The Guardian‘s] job is to protect Neoliberal capitalism and the status quo by providing a relief valve for centrist liberals- not hardly left.” “The Guardian is done, finished.”

Abunimah wasn’t finished. Identifying Treviño, in an August 18 follow-up piece for Al-Jazeera, as “a Republican party operative” and an “ideologue for hire,” he raged that among the passengers on that flotilla “whose killing by Israel Treviño endorsed” were “poet and author Alice Walker, elderly Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein and several journalists, including Joseph Dana on assignment for The Nation.” Asking “What’s gone wrong at The Guardian?” Abunimah charged that “the venerable left-leaning liberal newspaper has effectively given its stamp of approval to speech that goes beyond mere hate, speech that clearly crosses the line into incitement to murder unarmed civilians and journalists.” As if the point hadn’t already been made, Abunimah underscored Treviño’s “propensity to call for violence.” And just to add to the absurdity of it all, this Al-Jazeera hack raised the dark specter of the Guardian headed down – gasp! – the same path as the dreaded Fox News.

Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center and the author of “While Europe Slept” and “Surrender.” His book "The Victims' Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind" is just out from Broadside / Harper Collins.

Omar

Of course, leftists will never admit the fact that fascism is a far-left wing ideology and that fascist regimes like the Nazis in Germany opposed free-market capitalism and supported a government-controlled economy. Mussolini's regime in Italy had very similar aspects to a Marxist regime as well. The main difference between communism and fascism is that the communists favored internationalism while fascists favored extreme nationalism. Hence the term National-Socialism (aka the Nazi Party). Today's radical Islamists in the Middle East take much of their inspiration from Nazism, Fascism and Communism mixed in with Sharia. Mix those ideologies and that's how Islamofascism forms. The regime in Iran is a perfect example of those mixed totalitarian ideologies.

http://frontpage.com richard sherman

Trevino's hiring notwithstanding, THE GUARDIAN and most of its readers have the same editorial – and popular – opinion about Jews as DER STURMER. One hire does not change its – and their – foundational antisemetism.

Underzog

Incidentally, Hedy Epstein is not a holocaust survivor. She is a phony. She spent the time in Britain during the holocaust where she could ferment her anti zionist views.

steve brenner

Britian/england are lost to the arabs/muslims.
They have been no friends to Israel and the Jewish People for ever?
Jews need to return too are Home in Israel!
Fact since this current admin. the once Great USA is going over
to the arabs/muslims Jews are no longer safe here!

Hank Rearden

Don't despair. Help is on the way!!

Omar

Just remember, England is not a country. It is one of the four main internal divisions that form the country known as the United Kingdom or Britain.

kasandra

As I've posted before, the left loves diversity of everything except opinion.

marios

Socialism which is leftists goal, is dictatorship regime. They want power forever. No freedom under socialists regime. Instead of freedom of speech is controlled Goebbels's propaganda. It was/is in any socialistic country: USSR, China, Cuba,… Alas, for BHO 4 years reign our country tremendously moved to that goal. G-d help us to get Romney-Rayan in WH in Nov!

Jim_C

It's always "USSR, China, Cuba."

Why is it never "Norway, Denmark, Germany?"

Omar

Because those countries (USSR, China and Cuba and other communist regimes) have one of the worst human rights records in the world. Even today, places like China and Cuba are rated "Not Free" by the human rights organization, Freedom House.

Jim_C

Are you saying the US is more like the three countries you mentioned than the three I mentioned?

Personally I think BHO is just to the left of Nixon and just to the right of Clinton, but it's fair enough to argue he'd like to see us head toward a system more like the European "s___list" nations I mentioned.

Sprinklerman

To all those who publicly spoke out against Mr. Trevino's employment… Kettle meet Pot.

Gehrig Saldana

The left loves diversity in everything imaginable except opinion that runs contrary to their take on just about anything they champion. Stay the course Guardian and Josh!

Schlomotion

This article is as crazy as Bruce Thornton's male apologia for Republican Feminism. In this article, Bruce Bawer is claiming that The Guardian, aka Pravda will be enriched by the presence of a Twittiot, Joshua Trevino whose most well known commentary is that Americans deserve to be shot in the head execution style. Firstly, who appointed Mr. Bawer to the personnel department of The Guardian? How many countries and newspapers does this man think he writes for? Secondly, how is a Tweeter, a blog contributor and person who makes occasional television appearances now a journalist or writer? Have Mr. Bawer's standards slipped that much? Finally, how can a cheerleader of executions improve any journalistic enterprise?

Ray Olson

Schlomotion,

Please supply a link or citation to back up your statement that Trevino has said "that Americans deserve to be shot in the head execution style" and is "a cheerleader of executions". Direct, unredacted quotations of Trevino's writings and spoken statements are what's wanted.

Schlomotion

Your question is flawed, as Mr. Trevino is not really a writer, he is a Twitterer. Here are his tweets:

He is cheerleading the execution of Americans who were on the Gaza Flotilla who were shot execution style.

SCREW SOCIALISM

Schlockmoron, "Americans" who support Islamofascism deserve their fate.

john walker lind, john mohammed, alwaki.

Sclockmoron, If you were on the Islamofascist boat, and if you attacked the Israelis, I wouldn't shed a tear for you.

Schlockmoron, try pulling a knife or a gun on a cop in the US. You'll get what you deserve.

Ted G

Schlo said;
"He is cheerleading the execution of Americans who were on the Gaza Flotilla who were shot execution style. "

That statement alone is why you have absolutely no credibility.
You see the IDF are simply good shots.

LibertyLover

What's to disagree with? No comments about "execution."

Ray Olson

I looked at the tweets, and I don't see that they justify your complaints. Can you give me something from his writings for the Guardian and other periodicals, which Mr. Bawer and other respondents say he has written? Or something from a transcript of one of the media appearances others say he has made? I admit I never had heard his name until I read Mr. Bawer's posting, but I think those who make extravagant charges are obliged to adduce evidence. Will you, please?

Schlomotion

I think once is plenty for you. For a second round, use the search engines. You may however enjoy the more accurate description of Mr. Trevino at Frontpage's estranged sibling publication Truthdig:http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/why_d…

Ray Olson

Thank you. I still find your characterizations of Treviño's tweets far-fetched. On the other hand, I generally have no use for anyone involved with the Republican Party, mention of which in my presence I often greet by shouting, "Écrasez l'infâme!" The GOP is incapable of integrity, and I almost certainly would not find Treviño readable, let alone credible. But the Guardian should be able to add a commentator without provoking this level of disingenuous brouhaha.

Drakken

Please by all means join that "peace" flotilla, I certainly would hoist a drink in your honor for winning that much coveteted Darwin Award you so richly deserve.

poppakap

This comment of slomo's is as crazy as, well, his other comments. This one just amplifies the fact that Marxists have a really lousy sense of humor and feign indignation better than any group except Muslims.

Slomo, your sickle is horribly dull these days.

Touchstone

"Finally, how can a cheerleader of executions improve any journalistic enterprise?"

I'd like to remind everyone that Bowelmotion himself recently announced that he would "gladly" throw Michael Moore into a pit full of "sharpened stakes" (and earlier he expressed a desire to "wring Ben Shapiro's neck").

Regardless of anyone's feelings about Michael Moore, my point is to illustrate Bowelmotion's hypocrisy. He has the audacity to condemn a "cheerleader of executions" when HE HIMSELF is a cheerleader for executions. Does Bowelmotion think his own cheerleading for murder will "improve" FrontPageMag, the "journalistic enterprise" he contributes to daily? Who the hell is he to condemn anyone who endorses killing when he does the very same thing himself, with frequency and enthusiasm to boot?

Schlomotion

You have proven the point again that you will compare apples to oranges. In this case, the apples were my vivid disdain for Michael Moore for filming dreck (you think he is the bees knees), and the oranges are Joshua Trevino's serial intonations of heartfelt congratulations and encore that the IDF committed a war crime and executed peacemakers by shooting them in back the head at 45 centimeters for filming an atrocity.

Once again, you have made your point that a small vice, or misdemeanor of speech is a gigantic vice if it is against Israel's lobby, but it is a massive virtue if it is for Israel's lobby.

Touchstone

"you think he is the bees knees" — What I think about Moore's work is TOTALLY BESIDE THE POINT ! If you had any brainpower, you'd understand that I'm not defending Moore at all. I'm condemning YOU for advocating MURDER as a way to *solve* the problems you have with people you don't approve of. I'm condemning YOU for talking like a Nazi fascist pig who longs to murder political opponents, whether it be Ben Shapiro or Michael Moore. What I think about your specific opponents is TOTALLY BESIDE THE POINT !

Michael Moore is on record as saying that Israel is "evil". He's no friend of the Jewish state. And yet I admire his creative abilities while disagreeing with him politically. But what I don't admire are savages like you who would "gladly throw" filmmakers you don't like "on sharpened stakes"! As a supporter of Israel, I have more reason than you do to say angry things about Moore, yet I refrain. I simply don't share your evil, barbaric, murderous attitude.

Nothing you say can change the written record, and thus nothing you say can erase the well-earned charge of hypocrisy. You object to people who call for the murder of political opponents UNLESS YOU'RE THE ONE CALLING FOR THE MURDER OF YOUR OWN POLITICAL OPPONENTS. Nothing could be more hypocritical. You don't have a leg to stand on. You're checkmated. You lose.

Schlomotion

Oh, I disagree. For all I know, you could be Michael Moore's secretary. He's probably also more of a detriment to Americans than Israelis because he is confiscatory of the happiness, the liberty, the arms, and the money of other Americans, plus he lies so often in his "documentaries." He is as bogusly on the left as David Horowitz is on the right or Alex Jones is on the Libertarian. In essence, all of these people are gatekeeping impostors of political discourse, making sure that it stays dumbed down and wide-eyed with a cash flow.

I am amused at your linearity. Sometimes I think someone else is posing as you, these days when you are happy with scoring the petty points. Or the petitpoints. Such embroidery by you of my own writing, so much so that you think it is far prettier to cast me as a murderer because I murdered your sense of collective identity with a few rebuttals.

reader

Poor slob Moore must have offended muslim brotherhood to wind up on the receiving end of tro schlo's brow beating.

Glennd1

DO NOT CALL ALEX JONES A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT. He's a crank conspiracy theorist, and friendly to folks who are anything but defenders of the liberty envisioned by the classical liberals who founded our nation. He may also like libertarian political ideas, but his show and his positions have nothing to do with libertarianism.

Ted G

Schlo,

Your comments assert truths that do not exist. I have to ask once again are you on medication for this psychosis.
You remind me of a child with chocolate frosting all over their face, exclaiming adamantly "NO" I did not eat the cake.

Such is also the state of most islamic spokespeople. Yet you claim to be simply a devils advocate when pressed to explain. Are you perhaps a member of the Roxbury mosque?

Ghostwriter

I've just read Mr. Trevino's column. He seems far more reasonable than you and the swill you peddle.

Schlomotion

For all I know you are he and are pulling a Spengler. Why should I be surprised that you like his offerings?

Ray Olson

For all we know, you are an agent provocateur in the pay of Front Page to increase its reply postings. I use my real name. What is yours?

Schlomotion

They would need that, but no. My given name is Robert Goodwin.

marios

Muslim schlomotion of course on leftists side as those "useful idiots" promote Islam they aimed it or not. Good enough that majority is conservative. Real democracy with freedom of speech/opinion and No Islamization of Western world.

Glennd1

Hmm, sounds like Trevino is a real jerk. Who tweets something as vile as that? What is wrong with him? Me, I'm fine if all the religious extremists from all sides kill each other off – the world would be infinitely better for it. But I would never call for the IDF to shoot an American. And for you clapping seals here to just fluff for a moron like that, well, what does that say about you? Red State is garbage, btw, not worth reading at all.

Drakken

If you side with the muslims, you deserve that fate as well, there is no longer any middle ground here, period! If you actively go to join the savage palis in provoking a response from the Israelis you deserve a well earned Darwin Award like that moron Rachel Corrie, and the world will be a much better place for it. I would highly suggest you choose wisely.

Glennd1

Wow, you are a seriously deranged man – but at least you're honest. You are just a vicious partisan now, with no more interest in debate or argument or facts. I specifically stated that I don't support the Islamists either, so to lump them in with me is idiotic. But where we differ ,and where I'd ask you to think as an American, is whether this is a cause that requires America to act on a moral or strategic interest basis? Given the ethnic cleansing the Zionists engaged in between '47-'49, and then lied about for 40 yrs, I find the moral case for supporting Israel uncompelling.

Purely on a refugee basis, finding a safe place for Jews to live (the original Zionist cause, btw, not getting Palestine back), I have no problem with, I stand with the Jews on that count, no doubt. We should offer them asylum (and lots of other good, rich and educated people from all over the world) here – but to support their quest for Palestine and then their "transfer" of 650,000 Arab Muslims, well I just can't get behind any that. I'm Irish, we have a far better claim to the lands we fought for than any Jew has to Palestine (and died in equally large numbers) – but we had to give it up to have peace.

I choose very wisely, and am in no need of your counsel. Your ominous tone is amusing btw, you talk as though there is some real threat to me, which makes me giggle. You are so down far the rabbit hole that you have disconnected from reality, so sad. You take yourself so seriously, when in reality, you are just some angry man thrashing away at a keyboard. Sad, so sad.

Ted G

Aah! Glennd1 regardless of the false moral argument you are trying to make, your comments are full of revisionist claptrap. The so called pali debate was lost before it began. Both historically and well as rhetorically.
The international community simply pretends at talk and debate. Its really only because they can't seem to accept the fact of what it would mean if we were all to stop talking and take the only action offered by the islamofascists…war! So why can't we at least admit what this is all about eh?

Inasmuch as this is even close to accurate and I don't think its far off, Drakken has a much better point than you do!

Glennd1

I'm actually trying to have a conversation about this with folks here. I don't support the Islamists, I support the U.S. and it's interests. I don't see why the threat to Israel is an interest of ours, seriously. But I also want to get out of South Korea, Taiwan, Europe, and most of our other far flung military empire. At a minimums, we should bill these folks the full costs, plus a premium, for protecting them or leave immediately. While there is a legit argument for U.S. trying to stabilize the world (one that I don't agree with but understand), there are no circumstances in which we should be paying for all of this ourselves.

Why should we care less if all those religious maniacs in the mideast kill each other? Seriously? The oil countries have no other industries, so any disruption will be short term because by and large they have no other source of revenue so will have to sell their oil before too long. I'm not kidding – what would be different for the U.S. tomorrow if the Jews who wanted peace moved here and Zionists remained there and fought it out and lost or won? Why do I care, at all? Why should this be the interest of the American government? If you care about anti-semitism, asylum here covers, that, we have no moral need to guarantee Jews their God-given land, sorry. I'm an atheist and believe all that is nonsense anyway – why should my taxes go to any of it?

Ted G

Glennd1
I do appreciate your patriotic leanings and respect your right to have opinons regarding our foreign policies. The associated costs and any potential obligations we may take on regarding enforcing human rights, stopping/interupting genocide etc. those areas are certainly ripe for honest debate.
My response to your previous post was more critical and directed at the areas where you strayed into historical falsehoods and propaganda. Those passages bely a anti-Israeli predilection on your part. And IMHO it is factually unwarranted.

Ted G

Part II
In your response to me you then seem to include the Israeli's in your reference to "All those religious maniacs" which though Israel is a Jewish state it is run and administered by a secular government. Again this shows a serious bias contradicting the implied motivations of your postings.

In addition I find your offered suggestion for a solution ie inviting any "peaceful" israeli's here to be laughably unacceptable and insultingly unrealistic.

And lastly, you devolve back into religious (atheist though you may be) criteria to try and justify your opinion of non-involvement. But you seem to fail to recognize that though it is most definetely about islam and holy war for the islamists for Israel it is simply about survival and self defense not religion. So please pardon me if these things I have covered here seem to tarnish some of your other valid concerns.

I am open for debate, but do try to keep the playing field more level

Glennd1

You think offering refugee status for Jews in the U.S. to be laughable? Listen, we have given a security guarantee to protect them – refugee status is much less drastic. I mean either Israelis need protection or they don't?

Your reply claims that it's about Israel's survival – I agree. My question is why the U.S. should go to war over that? Why does it matter to the U.S. whether Israel exists or not? Again, to protect Jews, I'm happy to offer every Jew refugee status here. I mean you are suggesting we go to war – that is more than a little inconvenience. And as far as attacking Iran as part of some larger war with Islam – well nobody who is reasoned and knowledgeable suggests that. Tell me, what is so crucial about Israel that the U.S. should go to war?

Ted G

What you suggest is nothing more than a surrender to islam and the evil that it contains.

Your whole approach of why we should not defend an ally that adheres to civilized standards of law and rational thought as opposed to an irrational ideology based on world subjugation and murder of the non-muslim is deeply flawed to the point of idiocy. I mean not you sir but your argument.

You ignore the elephant in the room at your own peril! Just don't drag the rest of us down with you. You are invoking a Chamberlain type of attitude.

You have avoided addressing any other critique I have made. Such as your inaccurate historical comments. What I think you did get right is that "Was is basically unreasonable",
but don't make the mistake of assumming that making a decision as to when to go to war is only made by unknowledgable people without a reasoned and sober mind. That sir would be insulting.

Glennd1

But I do intend to insult you. You keep claiming the my historical comments are innacurate, but they are accepted truth among many Israeli, Zionists, Jewish historians now, ever read Benny Morris (probably the historian with the best reputation across the ideological spectruem)? I'll leave you with a couple of Morris quotes:

T Rami al interviewed Morris for the newspaper Yediot Ahronot in December 1994.
Morris: As one who received his education in Israel, I thought I knew that the Arabs had ‘run away.’ But I knew nothing else. The Jewish generations of 1948, however, knew the truth and deliberately misrepresented it. They knew there were plenty of mass deportations, massacres﻿ and rapes…The soldiers and the officials knew, but they suppressed what they knew and were deliberately disseminating lies.”

Benny Morris also said this:
“Israelis like to tell the world, that they are running an ‘enlightened’ or ‘benign’ occupation, qualitatively different from other military occupations﻿ the world has seen. The truth was radically different. Like all occupations, Israel’s was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation and manipulation.” Israeli historian, Benny Morris, “Righteous Victims.”

That's not me making stuff up, those are the words of a Zionist historian. He does claim that Jews had no choice and didn't plan on expelling 650,000 Arab Muslims from their homes between '47-'49, but he doesn't claim they just 'ran away'. No historian believes that anymore. So you are left believing this:

That despite discussing and planning what do to with the Arab Muslims living in Palestine for years, and openly acknowledging that the only way to have a Jewish nation was to "transfer" them, that when Zionists began to attack and cleanse city after city that they didn't mean to do so. That even though several Zionist terrorist organizations (Zionists call them para-military) were killing and cleansing, that none of those efforts were the moral responsibility of Israel. Or when Begin, in his memoirs, recounts how Israeli command authorized the cleansing of 50,000 Arabs in Lydda, that he was forced to do this, that there was no other choice.

If you are that gullible, that's your problem. But the rest of us live in reality, and hence, most of the world sees the Zionist cause for what it is – just another form of religious supremacy. Wake up and get a clue, would you please?

Ted G

Well at least you have shown that your implied objectivity regarding this issue is simply pretense. Everything you have just posted is absolutely in support of the islamists, add in a dishonest recitation of someones opinion as factual events of those years in the process. Did you leave anything out maybe? Most of this has been documented thoroughly.
I don't pretend to know all that this guy said or how credible he is, but I do know that all that you have stated is not necassarily fact, but more this particular mans opinions. That does not prove anything.

BTW I haven't seen the insult yet? Nice of you to offer though.

Ted G

Part II

Now that was a pretty weak attempt at adressing only one of several things I critiqued you on…care to take a stab at any of the rest?

Oh and Yes I do think it is laughable that you would suggest taking the entire population of Israel (oh but only the willing) and invite them here as refugees.

Why would you not suggest that the entire population of Judea and Samaria be welcomed in say Jordan as reugees? You don't want a debate you want to debate you jsut wanto convince people that we should give the murderous islamist whatever they want because…welll they are murderous thugs and you don't want to bother fighting them. That sir is cowardly! You may take that as an insult if you like.

Glennd1

I'm only saying that the U.S. has no need to support Israel in its Zionist quest. I don't think we should tell Jews where to go or Palestinians for that matter. Just don't tell me we have to attack Iran for either of them, and I'm all set, yeah? So your insipid analogy is not even rational. And, btw, I wouldn't have the U.S. offer blanket political refugee status to Palestinians in the way we would for Jews. So your equivalence is just silly. To put it in your language, what's happened is the Zionists convinced the west to give them territory occupied by others and at the point when those others and their friends in region got to the point where they could take it back, Israel uses the U.S. security guarantee as the ultimate trump card. And now we are being asked to back an attack against Iran – are you out of your mind? How can you suggest that is in U.S. interest for a second?

Also, I would take you calling me a coward as an insult if I considered what you have to say worth paying attention to, but I don't. And to take your question seriously, we have to talk about Zionism. It started out in 1898 as a quest for a Jewish homeland where Jews could be safe. Many Jews were not interested in fighting for Palestine, and in fact a not insignificant number of Jews felt it was against God's word to try and take it. The exile was imposed by God and it would be relieved by God – there are Jews to this day who believe that. At a certain point, the Zionist quest became the quest for Palestine, "from the river to the sea" – it's not just Arabs who shout that, Jews do too.

My point? Have at it – but don't dare claim that Zionists hands aren't covered in blood. They are and if you support them, your's are too. You aren't alone and the Palestinians and other Islamists have blood on their hands too – and in very large quantity. But still, there is no good reason for us to put so much at risk and to absorb so much cost in blood and treasure that an attack on Iran will ultimately result in.

I ask you again, you can't think crippling Iran but not decapitating it is a good idea, right? The only thing that can be done to Iran with success is to lightning strike it, decapitate the regime, destroy the Republican guard, the Al Quds and Basij militia. We would also necessarily have to take out a good chunk of the Mullahcracy. So, let's see we wipe out all govt, miiltary and religious figures – what do you then have? A nation in chaos. So we have to occup, maintain order and transition to a democratic govt. Ask yourself this, how realistic is that? We have had little success in Iraq with that approach and none in Afghanistan.

What is your brilliant plan, actually?

Glennd1

One more thing, just to be clearer. You find the idea of refugee status/asylum for Jews here to be laughable, but don't blink at asking our nation to go to war for Israel? It is you who is laughable in your inconsistencies.

My position recognizes that Jews really are without a truly safe place outside of the U.S., ultimately. And providing that to Jews is no mean thing – do you know how many hundreds of millions of oppressed people in the world can make a claim as dire as Jews for asylum here? It's incredibly preferential but it's also a recognition that Jews will thrive here. And it's also true that the U.S. is the only place we can actually offer Jews real protection and security.

Seriously, look at it – how do you see Israel ever living in peace or securely?

Ted G

Wow Glenn your use of the term Zionist has betrayed you. You do realize that it is technically an obsolete term and should only be used in the past tense. After all Israel exists already.

Now regarding your Refugee suggestion…why do you continue to waste time on something that is not only unrealistic as a solution, it will never happen. Never. Its not worth anything as far as trying to prop up your position. Its a useless theoretical.

You have been completely dishonest, you claim to argue against helping an ally based on our nationlist interests. Which is arguable in itself. But your writings show a more fundamental bias and based on that it reduces the weight of your opinion on that subject..

Ted G

Part II
If war comes it will not be because I pushed it as a solution. But I will not shirk from the heavy responsibility of that decision as you appear to promote.
How many steps back will you take before taking action? What is your "red line"?
I could throw in some apropo cliches such as;
*Avoiding the crocodile hoping that it will eat you last"
"If the arab states would put down there weapons there would be peace! If Israel puts down its weapons there would be genocide"
But I'm afraid they would be lost on you.

Now I started engaging you not necassarily because you don't have a valid position, but because you argued for it badly and dishonestly.

Ted G

Part III
Now throughout our exchanges you have dripped with derision and avoided responding to virtually any of my points and observations while I have made attempts to respond to many of yours.

You have also resorted to personal attacks unworthy of debate.

I do suppose that there was a fine line regarding the cowardly comment. But please notice I was trying to characterize your argument and it was not directed at you personally.

I do understand that emotions run high on this subject and on some points we may just have to agree to disagree. But I dont think you have read my comments with any objectivity, and some of your responses indicate that you didn't even read them accurately.

Omar

The United States doesn't have a military empire. Russia and Iran have military empires. Lebanon and Syria are examples of where Russian and Iranian military proxies are located.

Omar

There was no Zionist "ethnic cleansing" in the Middle East in the late 1940s or anytime in recent history. If anything, it is Islamist groups like Hamas who want to commit ethnic cleansing against Jews. Remember, Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel. For decades, Israel has been trying to negotiate for peace, but its neighbors reject peace because the neighbors don't want peace.

Glennd1

Listen, you can lie if you want to or be ignorant of history – but you can't just say what you said. The facts are very clear at this point. The narrative that 650,000 Arab Muslims living in Palestine just up and left under the orders of Arab armies to make way for the assault has been completely debunked. Begin's memoir makes this clear, as do various IDF and Israeli govt documents that have been unclassified. The record is clear. There is still an argument about how intentional it all was (which is truly absurd) and it's also true that the Arab Muslims living in Palestine were not little lambs, lying in the desert, set upon by evil Jews. The fight over the land had been escalating for some time, and all sides knew that establishing the state of Israel would be war – and it was.

In fact, our own newly formed CIA advised Truman that supporting the U.N. resolution partitioning of Palestine would lead to "endless war" in the region. This was never a good idea and it never will be. And the indigenous people and their neighbors are not becoming more accepting, they are becoming less. The situation will always be on a knife edge or close to it. Have you not noticed that there is always some level of conflict going on? The only way it will end is to change the facts on the ground. Do you know how many Arabs there are (and Persians and others) in the region? How can Israel survive long term? How can it ever be secure? And why should the U.S. be part of it?

Can you answer any of those questions?

Omar

I'm not being ignorant of history. I'm simply stating historical facts. First of all, Palestine was already partitioned by the 1940s (the land was partitioned by Churchill and the British in 1921-22, after World War I). The first partitioned Palestinian state was known as Transjordan, which was later renamed Jordan in the 1940s. When the Palestine Mandate was again partitioned by the UN in 1947, the Jews approved the partition plan, but the Arab states rejected that plan. There are approximately a million Arabs living in Israel with more rights and liberties as Israeli citizens than the people living in other countries in the Middle East. The problems and conflicts in the region are caused by terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah (both of which support the destruction of the democratic state of Israel) and terrorist regimes like the Ayatollah's theocracy in Iran. Peace can only be achieved if Israel's neighbors would sit down with Israel and negotiate a peace process that would recognize Israel's right to exist as well as to create another state that would recognize Israel as a state. The U.S. has tried to be diplomatic and has repeatedly create another Palestinian state for a long time. But until everyone negotiates, the conflict will still go on.

Glennd1

You, moron, are referring to the British Mandate for Palestine, a remnant of the defunct League of Nations – and even the British Mandate strictly forbade Zionists from forcing any indigenous people from their homes. But even more fundamental is that it did not give the territory to any entity – it merely tried to enforce some territorial boundaries. And the Zionists you back actually attacked the British over the status quo, launching a terrorist attack at the British headquarters of the mandate at the King David Hotel Jerusalem, killing 91 and injuring another 46 from various countries. This was done by the Irgun (a Zionist "paramilitary" group, which some of us call terrorists).

Your other claims about Arabs living in Israel are irrelevant, I'm not arguing that nor am I arguing for Hamas or Hezbollah. Your mind is so warped by knowing things that aren't true, it's sad. Go read a book instead of posting here, try Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, you would be far less glib about all this if you did.

Chezwick

My friends here are not going to like my comment, but Trevino bears at least partial responsibility for the firestorm….considering his tweet. Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that the cacophony of opposition to his hiring would've blared with or without the tweet. But the faux moral outrage of these hypocrites gained greater currency because a savvy writer couldn't control his impulse to post a stupid comment.

Let's get it together friends….it's obvious that we conservatives are held to a higher standard by the cultural gate-keepers than our left-wing opposites. So be it! Let's rise to the occasion! Let's exercise our free-speech rights with adult wisdom and circumspection…and rightly distinguish ourselves from the hateful, juvenile mentality of our opponents on the left.

Zionista

Melanie Phillips, the brilliant author of "Londonistan" wrote for the guardian but left after tiring of the rag's Israel bashing.

amused

Nothing should surprise anyone regarding the anti-Israel position of the Guardian , therefore anything that takes place there is irrelevant .

Hank Rearden

I don't think this article can be right. If it were, that would mean that all those leading Leftists were calling for blacklisting of Trevino and we know from the trauma of Hollywood in the 1950's that blacklisting is one thing to which the Left is unalterably opposed.

They say that sunlight is the best disinfectant and the Guardian should be given credit for having a go. But if your entire project is dead, does disinfectant work?

Union Jock

The Guardian has never been synonymous with 'socialism'. It was the paper of the radical, liberal, free-market bourgeoisie of the North of England and for most of its existence has supported the Liberal (now Liberal Democrat) party, which is now governing in coalition with the Conservatives.

The Guardian has to compete with a number of other broadsheet quality daily and Sunday titles and does not do so by confining itself to one point of view any more than does the Daily Telegraph or Times or Independent. Americans have big, dull, bland monopoly papers in most cities and do not seem to understand that the British prefer a clash of opinion to some editorial 'moderator' limiting op-ed content to the dreary dead level of the 'middle of the road'. That may be why British press websites punch so far above their weight overseas. The real criticism against the NY Times, LA Times or WashPost is their colossal 'responsible' pomposity and boringness, not their 'liberal' bias per se. Cleaving always to the same line is always dull to read, no matter what the line is.

pyeatte

Any Americans on that flotilla would have deserved whatever happened to them. They had no business being there.